Much as been written that the first two Democrat primaries did not reflect America. Basically, the voters were too white – not enough diversity. The Nevada primary was said to be more diverse – more representative of the nation. Still, its 8 percent black population is lower than the national average of 14 percent.
A number of television pundits suggested that South Carolina would be the best representative of diversity. Apparently, they were not doing the math. In the South Carolina Democrat primary, approximately 66 percent of the registered voters are black – and they were 61 percent of the vote. That is almost five times above the national average.
It can be argued that South Carolina was the best indicator of support in the black community, but it cannot be extrapolated over the American population – not even the demographics of the general Democrat voters in America. None of the Super Tuesday primaries will match the black vote of South Carolina. Only Alabama and Georgia come close.
Winning the South Carolina primary was a political lifesaver for former Vice President Joe Biden, but it may not be predictive of his chances in the 14 states (plus American Samoa) that go to the polls on Super Tuesday – and beyond that.
Biden did well among African American voters in the Palmetto State, but he was fortunate to have had the black candidates – New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and California Senator Kamala Harris – drop out earlier. The black voters of South Carolina did not have a brother or sister on the ballot to draw their support. They had to pick from the field of white candidates.
Of course, that will be the case in the future. But Biden’s popularity among black South Carolinians may not, itself, be an indicator of how he does in future primaries in which there are a significant number of black voters.
Southern black voters tend to be a bit more moderate and less racially bound than their northern counterparts. Some see it as the recognized difference between Afro-centric blacks and those commonly referred to as “Island Blacks” – who identify more with the Caribbean than Central Africa. This significant cultural difference is often overlooked or ignored by political analysts who see the black community as one giant monolithic cultural group.
The Afro-centric community is more likely to lean to the expansive welfare policies of the Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party. If that is true, it will be seen more in the California, Massachusetts and Minnesota primaries on Super Tuesday – and subsequently in states like Illinois, Michigan and New York. And it may result in less support for Biden than he received from the black community in South Carolina.
On the other hand, Sanders’ still has a problem of attracting a significant number of black Democrat voters in upcoming primaries to maintain an insurmountable lead in the presidential race. That makes the prospect of a brokered convention a lot more likely.
So, there ‘tis.
Article By Larry Horist
It seems almost impossible to imagine. With a starting lineup of some 28 candidates, the race seems to now be a competition between the six who made the stage in the Las Vegas debate – with no disrespect to those who are officially still running but not able to make it to the debate stage. As Joe Biden oft says – “come on, people, get real.”
Looking at the mud fight that was billed as the Democrats’ Las Vegas debate, it is arguable that the best choices are no longer in the running.
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party might have been better served by candidates like New Jersey Senator Cory Booker or California Senator Kamala Harris. They lean to the left ALMOST as far as Senator Elizabeth Warren but without falling into the radical camp of senator Bernie Sanders. They are certainly as articulate as any of those in the lead – and more so that some of them.
Like their policies or not, they do have strong resumes – especially Booker who was the mayor of a MAJOR city (Sorry, Mayor Pete) and a United States Senator. He came to the race with stronger credentials than Barack Obama – and he made it all the way to the White House. Given the Democrats current flirtation with dogmatic socialism, Booker and Harris are more moderate, ergo more acceptable and more likely to win.
In terms of the so-called moderate wing of the Democratic Party, the best candidates fell off the earliest. In fact, they hardly got any traction whatsoever. Guys like Colorado Senator Michael Bennett. I saw him as the John Kasich of the Democrat field. You remember Kasich – the former governor of Ohio and candidate calling for harmony, unity and all things wonderful. Kasich was a bit of a whiner and that is the same quality I see in Bennett. In terms of projecting a public image, Kasich and Bennett are two guys you could not find if they were standing on a street corner by themselves.
Another moderate who seemed like he would be a good President was Congressman John Delaney. But he had two problems. True political moderates are persona non grata in the Democratic Party and he is not a good campaigner.
It is not small irony that those who drop by the wayside in the race to the Oval Office seem to personify the call for unity – like they actually meant it and could do it. Of course, the frontrunners all claim that they can unify the nation, but they campaign on divisiveness.
Some of the Democrats who dropped out of the race could easily pass the likability test – something the frontrunners seem incapable of doing.
As a conservative, however, I am not sorry to see the disarray on the progressive Democrat side. They may be on their way to nominating the worst possible candidate.
So, there ‘tis.
I am not a conspiratorial theory-type. But if I was, I might suspect that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is Republican secret agent – a sort of Manchurian candidate – programmed to wreck the Democratic Party and get President Trump re-elected.
Of course, he is not. But he could not do more to ensure the defeat of the eventual Democrat candidate for President. – no matter who it is.
For generations, Democrats have promoted the belief that all those corporate fat cats were Republicans. That is why they complained about political donations from evil Wall Street. If there ever was the personification of what Democrats claimed to hate, it is Michael Bloomberg – a mega-billionaire willing to spend a fortune to buy his way into the White House.
While billionaire businessman Tom Steyer exposed a bit of Democrat hypocrisy as the Party leaders embraced both Steyer’s politics and money, Daddy Warbucks Bloomberg eliminates any pretense that Democrats are concerned about corporate money and those Wall Street one-percenters who control it.
They may be critical of him as a competitor, but not his money in principle. Senator Elizabeth Warren said Bloomberg should withdraw from the race but encouraged him to then use his billions to help Democrats get elected.
On the issue of money-in-politics, Bloomberg takes the onus off Republicans and makes the Democrats look bad.
However, that is small potatoes, as they say, compared to the damage Bloomberg is doing by running for President. While he claims to be most concerned that socialist Bernie Sanders might actually get the Democrat nomination for President, Bloomberg’s campaign is making that prospect more and more likely every day.
Bloomberg clearly further splinters the anti-Sanders vote. Entering the race was bad enough. But Bloomberg brought to the campaign more than enough money to guarantee a bloc of delegates – despite skipping the first four primaries.
Bloomberg’s initial strategy was based on arrogance and hubris. It was to put so much money in the race that folks like Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar would immediately suspend their campaigns and yield the road to Milwaukee to Bloomberg.
That is a simplistic theory, and there is no assurance that all the Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar voters would go for Bloomberg. It is arguable that a large percentage – even a majority of black and Hispanic voters in the so-called moderate camp — could switch to Sanders.
Since the moderates have not dropped out, Bloomberg has initiated Plan Two – to force a brokered convention in which he could more secretively buy the nomination. That, of course, would make the Democrat presidential nomination a jump ball between him and Sanders.
That is how Bloomberg will destroy any chance Democrats have of beating Trump. Imagine a nation facing the prospect of four more years of President Trump – by all measure a fairly successful President despite his abrasive and pugnacious personality – and either the radical socialist or the American oligarch as the other option.
If Sanders was the nominee, he has already said that Bloomberg’s money would be unwelcomed – and even Bloomberg seems to believe that no amount of money would overcome Sanders’ political vulnerabilities. He is probably correct.
If Sanders is kicked to the side at the convention and Bloomberg emerges as the Democrat standard bearer, no amount of money would get all those angry and bitter Sanders’ supporters to the polling places. They would more likely be in the streets protesting. It could be 1968 all over again.
One young Sanders supporters told me that if the Democrat establishment rigs the race against Sanders again, she and her friends will vote FOR Trump to punish the Democrat establishment. That may be just be anecdotal – just talk — but it does sound credible. And if she and her friends did that, there definitely would be others.
Bloomberg has the reputation as an intelligent man – but you have to wonder. Is he clueless of the damage he is doing to the Democrats – maybe even irreparable at this point – and the benefit his candidacy is providing to Trump? The only explanation that makes sense is the blindness of arrogance.
So, there ‘tis.
The sky is falling again. The wolf is at the gate. The American Republic is about to crash. President Trump is the greatest threat to American democracy since King George III tried to take back the colonies in the War of 1812.
At least in the latest fearmonger campaign concocted by the Democrats and implemented by the public relations agency of CNN, MSNBC & Co. Several previous attempts to bring down President Trump — with variations on mendacious narratives that Vladimir Putin is Trump’s number one backer – have failed. And now we have yet another. This one due to a claim by one of the intelligence bureaucrats that the Russians are helping Trump – for a second time according to the left’s pernicious narrative.
Before dealing with the current re-packaging of the old propaganda, we should look back down that twisted trail to see how it all evolved.
American intelligence agencies discovered that Russian operatives were using social media to meddle in the 2016 General Election. This was reported to then-President Obama – whose initial response was to privately tell Vlad not to do that anymore. The finger shaking diplomacy was to no avail.
In retrospect, even Obama aides later admitted that a public condemnation tied to sanctions would have been more appropriate and more effective. Obama did impose some mild sanctions and booted the Ruskies out of some facilities in Maryland where covert operations were said to be taking place.
In those early days, it was widely reported by the intelligence community – and by President Obama – that the Russian meddling did not affect the outcome of the election. In fact, some of the meddling was harmful to Trump. Some was just to cause grassroots friction – especially in the area of race relations.
While the Trump campaign was peripheral to Russian meddling, Democrats and their media pals slowly twisted the narrative to suggest that Russian meddling was not only SOLELY to secure the election of Donald Trump, but that Trump, his family and his campaign aides were actively conspiring with the Russians.
Democrats and biased bureaucrats subjected the nation to a two-year investigation in which the assured we the people that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would most certainly find that Trump had conspired with the Russians. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff even reported that he had seen conclusive evidence. Schiff’s lie was exposed when Mueller have Trump a clear and complete exoneration of the accusations.
Having failed in that effort, the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement put the nation through a divisive impeachment process that was the most partisan in American history — and the first in which there was no underlying statutory crime.
House Speaker Pelosi broke tradition by putting Schiff and his intelligence committee in the fore of the impeachment investigation – a departure from the role of the Judiciary Committee to conduct any impeachments. Pelosi did not trust Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler to do a good job. He was the bull in the china shop compared to the slick talking Schiff.
As expected, the impeachment was foredoomed in the Senate. The ending of that movie was already known. And as some had predicted, the impeachment appears to have increased Trump’s favorability rating.
The twice debunked narrative of Trump conspiring with the Russians is now being resurrected once again – with all the hyperbole and sensationalism that only the left-wing media can provide. They hope to ride that dead horse to victory in the upcoming election.
The news of the day that has gotten the media cabal all excited is a report in the New York Times (where else?) that Trump replaced the head of national intelligence supposedly because a member of the intel staff reported to Schiff’s committee that the Russians were now meddling in the 2020 election to get Trump re-elected.
What facts to support that theory are yet unknown. But Trump’s enemies are declaring that he replaced his intel chief with the current ambassador to Germany because he was enraged that such a communication would be presented to Schiff’s committee without his knowledge. Trump expressed concern that Schiff would weaponize that information – true or not – to be used against the President – and that seems to be exactly what is happening.
It is not an unreasonable concern. Traditionally, the Intelligence Committee has stayed away from partisanship. That ended when Pelosi made the Intelligence Committee the most politically partisan legislative body within Congress. She did so by assigning the impeachment to Schiff and his band of rabid Democrats.
While Democrats say that it is part of the process for the intel community to brief Congress, someone seemed to skip the interim step – telling the President of the United States. Remember it was Obama who got the word first about Russian meddling -– before Congress. In fact, Congress was never informed until Obama went public with the information.
The President has every right to distrust Schiff and the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. After all, they are the ones that undertook that unjustified impeachment. It was shamefully carried out for no other reason than to damage Trump’s reputation and historic record.
Why Trump’s intelligence officials would run off to Congress without informing the boss first is yet to be explained. But that alone seems to be more than just cause for a few heads to roll.
As to what the Russians might be doing, only time will tell. But a healthy measure of skepticism would be well advised before we follow Schiff & Co. down another rabbit hole – or perhaps more appropriately, a rat hole.
The Democrats are looking very desperate these days. Like all the other obsessive and irrational attempts to take Trump down, this could – and should — also backfire.
So. There ‘tis.
As a lifelong political analyst, I have had to deal with polls – all kinds of polls. I have even had to construct them for clients. Those years of experience have taught me that polls are merely events to give reporters something to report or to deceive the public. Yep! Deceive, not inform.
Polls only give an approximation of fact at best – or merely the APPEARANCE of facts that do not exist. They gain credibility because all those reporters and columnists report polling results as fact – as if the information is accurate. For example, they may say, “Today’s Gallup Poll shows that 49 percent of voters now approve of President Trump.”
That sounds convincing. But what about the Quinnipiac Poll of the same day that says, “Trumps popularity has declined to 42 percent.” That seven-point difference represents millions of voters. So, who is correct? Is either correct? We really do not know. Still, the polls are given maximum exposure and credibility in the media.
Then there is that “margin of error.” One might assume that the results of any elections should fall within that range – but they often do not. So what value is the “margin of error” when the “error” falls outside the “margin.”
To show just how inaccurate these polls can be, you should recall that, in the New Hampshire primary, the networks reported that 48 percent of the voters did not make up their mind until 24 hours before they voted. Almost half the voters were undecided before then.
Weeeeell … what about all those polls taken in the previous weeks in which 80-plus percent of the voters told their preference long before election day. By most polls, the “undecideds” leading into the primary were somewhere between 10 and 20 percent. Obviously those two reports could not have both been even remotely true.
You must also consider who is doing the polling. Polling firms, such as Gallup and Quinnipiac, are considered to be the most objective – but even then, it may depend on who pays for the poll. Biases get built in.
Campaigns often take two polls – a public-consumption poll to indicated that they are doing well and a private poll to see where they actually stand. On the surface, both polls look very legitimate, but subtle variations in the questions will influence public opinion.
Polls also have a very short shelf-life. They will mostly approximate an outcome on the eve of an election – and even then, they can be egregiously wrong. No political advisor or analyst would believe that polling done long before an election has any bearing on the ultimate results.
Polls that show President Trump behind his Democrat opponents mean nothing … yes, nothing … in predicting the outcome of the November election. Keep in mind that President Obama had polling numbers worse than Trump’s at around this time before his re-election.
One of the greatest examples of meaningless polling is the so-called national popularity poll. It is irrelevant to the outcome of a presidential election because it counts a lot of folks who will not be voting. Even worse. It does not take into consideration our Electoral College system. One only need recall that Hillary Clinton was consistently more popular than Trump in the 2016 election.
In many ways, polls are the opiate of politics. We are hooked on them even though they offer no real benefit other than to provide a desired alternate reality.
So. There ‘tis.
Thanks to the misguided 1970 federal election laws that enable the super-rich to outspend any and all potential political opponents – actually restricting the less wealthy candidates’ ability to raise money – we now have the nightmare realized. It is former New York multi-billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He has become the true American oligarch.
Oligarchs are not communists per se – although we do refer to super-rich communists as oligarchs. An oligarch is a person who controls massive wealth in private-sector business and – at the same time – uses that wealth to attain power, prestige and profit. Think Burisma and Mykola Zlochevsky.
One could argue that by that definition President Trump could be an oligarch. But he does not quite measure up. Trump had to compete for donations and for votes against candidates with more campaign funds than he could expend. He was not rich enough to completely “buy” his way into office. He had to compete.
Yes, a lot of rich candidates have the advantage of kicking off their campaigns with seed money in the bank. And it might be enough to buy a governorship or senate seat – which is bad enough – but not the presidency.
Bloomberg believes that he can win the Democrat presidential nomination – and even the presidency – by simply outspending all his competitors combined. Even billionaire Tom Steyer cannot compete at that level.
Bloomberg’s strategy is to “hire” more people on the ground in more states than any of the other Democrat candidate can hire and recruit as volunteers. Bloomberg believes that by spending hundreds of millions of dollars – maybe billions – on slick radio, television and social media advertisements, he will create shelf appeal without the voters getting to examine the product.
Blomberg has always been regarded as a mediocre to poor political campaigner. He is not good on the stump. He’s not good in debate. Portions of his record are political negatives. But since he will not come out from behind his media façade, those issues cannot be effectively examined and challenged.
The former New York mayor has snubbed his nose at the American democratic process. Forget about Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Forget about organizing rallies. Forget about going door-to-door – except to get footage for his ad agency cameras.
Like any oligarch, Bloomberg does not want to compete. He wants to control. Like any oligarch, Bloomberg’s wealth and ambition trump the need to be examined by the voting public. Like any Oligarch, Bloomberg want the public to see and accept only his media crafted image.
Like all other oligarchs, Bloomberg is an authoritarian. He is Big Brother. He is the Nanny State. He believes in his own judgment over the manifest will of the people. He is hoping to get to the presidency – his longtime ambition – as a cut-out character crafted by the propaganda of public relations experts.
If anyone needs a reality or fact check, it is Bloomberg – but that is not going to happen if he gets his way. Electing Bloomberg could be a tipping point for our representative Democracy.
So, there ‘tis.
I am not a mean-spirited person. I have never hated a person in my whole life. I do not wish ill-will on others. If that headline seems to be inconsistent with my self-proclaimed character, allow me to explain.
The first thing to remember is that all these characters work “at the pleasure of the President.” No matter what one may think of President Trump’s personality – and I have been a constant critic – he had every reason in the world to be displeased with Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman and European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland.
Their cases are quite different. Sondland is not a career diplomat – and even if he was, it would make no difference. Ambassadors are appointed by the President and can be removed by the President for any reason at any time. The establishment bureaucrats – who seem to think that a President works for them – argue that every portion of the Executive Branch outside of the White House grounds are autonomous agencies of government over which a President has very limited power. Au contraire.
Vindman is a bit of a different case because he is a member of the Armed Forces. He can be resigned while remaining in the military – which is exactly what happened to him. He will be a pencil-pusher at the Pentagon without reduction in rank or pay should he choose to remain on active duty. Hardly the fate of a person the press contends is the victim of retaliation and revenge.
Although much of the media used the word “fired” – as they did with Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch — neither were put out on the streets Jovanovich retained her government grade level and salary and will by continuing in their chosen careers in rather comfy government jobs. She was simply reassigned.
All three of these folks disobeyed Trump’s order to not testify – to ignore any Congressional subpoenas issued by the Democrats in Congress. They chose to voluntarily testify against the President. Some argue that Trump’s order was illegal and unconstitutional, but that was never decided by the Supreme Count – that other co-equal branch of government that Democrats like to ignore.
Vindman, Sondland and Yovanovitch all disobeyed Trump’s order without knowing whether it was a legitimate order or not. That question is still unanswered but is most certainly not in the purview of those three to make that judgment.
Vindman may have a unique problem since he is a member of the military and Trump is the Commander-in -Chief. Arguably, Vindman disobeyed a direct order. Soldiers can do that but only if the order is CLEARLY illegal according to the rules of military justice – and even then, they have to take the issue up the command.
In the case of Vindman and Yovanovitch there is some evidence that they were actually undermining the President because of significant and politically biased opposition to his policies as President. It seems increasingly likely that Vindman and his brother knew and talked to the whistleblower. If that is true, Vindman committed an egregious violation of national security. President-to-President conversations are highly classified.
In the case of Yovanovitch, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinsky expressed his displeasure with her – saying she had been working against his campaign for the presidency. The removal of Yovanovitch was reciprocal – since Zelinsky advised Trump that he was replacing the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States. That is often what happens when a new head-of-state arrives on the scene.
All of that can be – and should be – investigated more fully. But regardless, Trump has every reason to not trust these folks to pursue his policies in the future. Even their most ardent defender would have trouble convincing anyone that these folks are a positive part of the President’s team – as any President has a right to expect. When they chose to go public in support of a failed impeachment, they – not Trump – sealed their fate.
They had another more honorable recourse – resign or seek a reassignment. That is the proper course of action – not undermining or sabotaging policies with which you do not agree. At the point that happens is when the civil service corps become the deep state resistance movement.
Trump has done what any good executive would do – make sure he or she has his or her team in place. Elections have consequences – and that is one of the most fundamental consequences.
So, there ‘tis.
Probably no senator sitting in the impeachment trial has faced a more fateful decision on both the issue of additional witnesses and on voting to convict President Trump than Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins.
By all definitions, she is in a tough race for re-election. Maine is a very progressive state and she had been able to maintain her seat by being among the more liberal Republicans. But the perception of her in the Pine Tree State started to change when she voted in favor of confirming Brett Kavanaugh as a justice on the Supreme Court.
That Kavanaugh hearing pushed Collins through the wringer on the abortion issue. As a pro-choice Republican, Collins was under intense pressure to vote “no” on seating a clearly pro-life Justice. She did so in the belief – or with the excuse – that Kavanaugh said he respected precedent when looking at cases. That could mean he would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. The pro-abortion advocates were not as convinced as Collins seemed to be.
The Trump impeachment trial put Collins back into the boiling water with two votes – one to vote in favor of having more witnesses and ultimately on the vote to convict or acquit. Even more than the Kavanaugh vote, the impeachment put Collins into an even more untenable political position.
Collins voted against Trump on the issue of witnesses, but since her vote did not change the favorable outcome for Trump, she will not suffer any retribution from Trump voters. But neither will she gain any favor from Maine’s progressive voters.
Collins political coup de grace may come with her vote on the issue of guilt. Ironically, she is likely to lose support no matter which way she casts her vote. The Democrats covet that seat. If they cannot beat Collins, their chance of taking control of the Senate is greatly reduced.
On the other hand, Collins is not the darling of conservative Republicans and the Trump fans. Their lack of enthusiasm will cost her some support – not from Republicans voting against her, but from those who stay home.
In short, it does not look good for Collins regardless of her impeachment votes.
So, there ‘tis.
Heading into the critical impeachment votes, Democrats and their media allies were working overtime to try to shame Republican senators into voting for ADDITIONAL witnesses and the ultimate removal of President Trump from office.
(“Additional” is emphasized to draw attention to the fact that there were 18 witnesses with testimony presented in both the House and Senate – either live or via video. Outside of Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, that is how witnesses were handled in the Clinton impeachment. They did not appear on the floor of the Senate as implied in news reports.)
But I digress.
One of the main claims in the shaming effort is that Senators who did not vote with the Democrats will have their reputations destroyed now and in the future. They will forever be remembered negatively for their vote. History will not be kind to them.
I have lived through two impeachment efforts. The first was the aborted impeachment of President Nixon and the second the impeachment of President Clinton. The Nixon impeachment was more memorable to me because I worked in the Nixon White House – although I was back in the private sector when that break-in at the Watergate occurred.
Obviously, I followed the events very closely. I even knew a lot of the players in the White House and in Congress. I remember more than most, but that is no big deal because most people today have virtually no knowledge other than Nixon was about to be impeached – and he resigned. That is about it.
The names of the senators who supported or opposed Nixon are barely known to historians. Their biographies and obituaries are filled with many more notable accomplishments. To the extent they are remembered, it is only by those few who do research and, perhaps, the folks in their local communities.
Even in the Clinton impeachment – with all that sensationalism – there is very little civic memory of individual senators. And … were all those Democrat senators who voted to acquit Clinton the same political pariahs that Democrats and the press now describe contemporary Republicans?
In other words, all this talk about their name in history is nonsense. Anyone who thinks that the names and works of the senators who served as the impeachment jury will resonate through history are either foolish or arrogant.
Most senators probably know that – and that is the reason that they could not be shamed by the Democrat/media character assassination campaign. It is not easy to shame people who believe that they did the right thing for the country – even if others might disagree.
I would dare say that a good number of those Republican senators are proud of their vote – feeling that they did the right thing. Even more, there are probably a lot of folks back home who will applaud their senator’s vote. Living in Florida, I am very happy that Senators Rick Scott and Marco Rubio put an end to that highly partisan impeachment.
The shameful shaming tactic will not work because it will not influence the legislators or change many minds among the public. It is just the left displaying its arrogance and intolerance. The real shame falls on the east coast press for engaging in this low-level political propaganda.
So, there ‘tis.
Like many Republicans, independents – and Democrats – President Trump is a pro-lifer. He is joined in that belief by most Republican leaders and a sprinkling of Democrat leaders. Abortion is arguably the most significant moral issue of our day. It is an understatement to say that it is a highly emotional issue with very strong feelings on both sides.
It is not a simple pro and con issue. – abortion at any time for any reason versus a total ban on all abortions for any reason. The public has varying beliefs regarding abortion – such as when an abortion can take place, procedures used or medical necessity.
The general pro-life view is that an abortion should only take place where there is a compelling necessity – such as the life of the mother, rape or incest. It should never be considered for questions of convenience, economics or simple desire – abortion-on-demand, as they put it.
Pro-lifers believe that the fetus in the womb is a human being with all the rights and protections of a moral and just society. Pro-lifers reject the illogical and scientifically inaccurate description of the fetus as an integral “part of a woman’s body” over which she has exclusive right to keep or discard – with all the moral vaue of getting a haircut or clipping fingernails.
Even though past presidents have described themselves as pro-lifers, they have too often dealt with the issue by avoidance rather than activity – lip service over policy. In the modern era, only President Reagan was an active abortion critic. Regardless of their stated stand on the issue, no President has ever participated in or even attended the annual pro-life demonstration in Washington. In fact, it was newsworthy when Vice President Pence spoke at the rally in recent years.
That all changed this year.
For the first time ever, a President of the United States attended the rally to underscore his commitment to pro-life policies. In view of Trump’s view on the subject — and his policies and appointments that clearly established his view – it should not have been surprising that he would underscore his commitment to the pro-life agenda by speaking at the rally.
The left reacted as if Trump was creating new controversy. How could he weigh-in on the issue in such an obvious manner? FOX News regular, Juan Williams personified the reaction of the pro-abortion left. He accused Trump of intentionally using his appearance to divide the nation. He should have stayed out of the issue. After all, there are lots of people who favor abortion and it is “the law of the land.” Williams – as a black media personality — should be one of the last to need reminding that slavery, too, was once “the law of the land.”
In Williams view, no president has ever done such a dastardly thing. Williams did not actually call it “dastardly,” but from the tone of his rant, the word is not an inappropriate description. That seems to be the strategy of the left. Do not talk about abortion. Do not debate it. And above all, do not show all those images of all those crushed skulls and dismembered bodies.
For those of us who believe that life in the womb is an imbued with what we call inalienable rights, it is as fitting and proper for Trump to put his belief on the record as it is for him to fight for policies that would make abortions EXTREMELY rare. As a pro-lifer, myself, I applaud Trump for standing tall on the issue.
So, there ‘tis.